An ML-TL is defined by the cross-section, the length, driver offset, restricted terminus details (placement & size), and the driver offset.
Cross-section is critical.
Chamfer, roundovers help with both edge diffraction and the nature of thebaffle step diffraction. A Pensil built into a circular cyclinder would be good (hard to mount driver). Trapezoid is a crude representaion odf a teardrop and has a very low diffraction signature.
The terminus in the Pensil is the cabinet material depth (18-20mm) and at the very end of the pipe.
dave
Is it the total square centimeters of the cross section the main consideration or is the shape of the cross section as important?
Because by laws of math, I believe I have the same total square centimeters of cross section. I have the same enclosure height and volume therefore the same cross section. I've just masssaged the shape of it a bit.
I was inspired by nandappe to make his twtd13.5t for maops. Going to give to a family member as a gift. Fun build and of course many things I could have done better. I'd suggest not mitreing the joints. So hard to get right.
Attachments
So this is a re-shaping of the pensil to roughly match the shape of the trapezoidal-MarKen.
Same volume, same height, same front baffle width, same port size & location as the Alpair 10.3 Pensil. The little wings on the sides will be cut off after assembly.
Do we think this will likely net any audible improvements?
Is it worth the effort vs a rectangular enclosure?
The diffraction signature will be made a fair amount smaller. So they should disapear more eassily and create a more solid 3D soundstage/image/
dave
Hi AlexZB,
When MAOP10 is used for backloading, the bass is looser.
The normal version is fine for use with TQWT and ML-TL, but the magnet-added version is better for back-loaded use.
Please try various options.
By the way, I put 5 neodymium magnets (32mmφ x 3mmt) on BH box in the direction to repel the driver's magnet.
Hi @nandappe
A great Idea and worth testing, although I don't feel the need for more bass at all. The existing one is articulated and goes down in tests to 28hz. The only problem, but not that big, I find it in HF, where it is already known that FR is deficient, but with an EQ correction it becomes decent to good
Once again thank you for your ideas and your work. I'm sorry that many of the users of the forum do not take your achievements seriously. As you said at one point "Once in a lifetime this SDDBH is worth trying"...
A great Idea and worth testing, although I don't feel the need for more bass at all. The existing one is articulated and goes down in tests to 28hz. The only problem, but not that big, I find it in HF, where it is already known that FR is deficient, but with an EQ correction it becomes decent to good
Once again thank you for your ideas and your work. I'm sorry that many of the users of the forum do not take your achievements seriously. As you said at one point "Once in a lifetime this SDDBH is worth trying"...